Monthly Archives: September 2014

‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 






Britain’s real ‘terror threat’: eco-sceptic politicians

Leave a reply




Over the last few weeks, as the situation in Syria and Iraq has deteriorated, we’ve seen politicians in the West become more bellicose about the “threat” of terrorism to our way of life.

What few in this debate seem to address is whether there is any objective data, compared to other non-terrorist ‘threats’, to support that assertion.

Rather like the ‘reds under the bed’ scares of the Cold War, the threat of ‘Islamism’ is held up as an existential threat to the British public innocently going about their daily lives. However, if we look at the statistics we can’t demonstrate that claim.

How many people in Britain get killed by terrorism in Britain in an average year? Given recent media coverage, how many do you think?

Bees and hornets pose the same risk as ‘terrorism’

Until the murder of Private Lee Rigby in May 2013, no members of the public had been killed by terrorist acts in Britain since 2005. Even with Britain’s history of terrorism, due to the conflict in Ireland, in global terms the risk from terrorism here is low.

The relative scale of the public’s risk of fatality from terrorism was outlined in the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s report published in 2012:

“During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom. The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees.”

That said, must we declare bees and hornets to be as dangerous as al-Qaida? Perhaps that’s why the Government doesn’t want to ban neonicotinoid pesticides in Britain.

Is the loss of civil liberties proportionate to the threat?

The Government, incited by sections of the media, has made a great play of their tough stance on counter-terrorism – and the powers which we grant our security services. Again, are these proportionate to the objective threat?

In July, Britain’s oldest ethical Internet service provider, GreenNet, sued the Government and GCHQ for their arguably unlawful breach of British citizens right to privacy as part of their mass collection of on-line data.

The response of the Government was to regularise that breach of privacy laws by rushing through emergency legislation. David Cameron’s justification for this was that

“Sometimes in the dangerous world in which we live we need our security services to listen to someone’s phone or read their emails to identify and disrupt a terrorist plot.”

Is the threat to our civil rights and privacy really worth that intrusion? And, compared to the threat to democratic values posed by the Government’s spy systems, does that power significantly reduce the risks to the public from terrorism?

To answer that point let’s put that 5 per year terrorism fatality figure into a wider statistical context:

I think that makes the relative hazard of terrorism to other ‘threats’ quite clear. Is this reflected in the current media debate? Clearly not!

Now this really is scary – ditching the ‘green crap’

As I outlined in a recent article for The Ecologist, last year David Cameron instructed his aides to “get rid of all the green crap” from Government policy.

And yet some of the greatest threats to the public are a result of that so called “green crap”. You don’t have to take my word for that – let’s look at what the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has to say.

The MoD publishes its Global Strategic Trends report for those within the MoD and wider Government who are involved in developing long term planning. They recently published the fifth edition, which identifies long term threats and opportunities to 2045 (it even has a scary cartoon which summarises it).

If you read that report, you could almost think you were reading something penned by WWF or Greenpeace. For example:

“As we increase the stress we place on the natural environment, our need to understand, protect and preserve it will almost certainly grow. Climate change, a rise in sea levels, desertification and reducing biodiversity are all issues that could affect us even more over the next 30 years. They are likely to impact on agricultural production and fishing, and could exacerbate humanitarian crises.”

In stating that, the MoD are not being alarmist. You can find similar reports being produced today by other ‘establishment’ organisations – such as the World Economic Forum.

US military researchers produced a broadly similar document in March 2014, which considered climate change to be a particular threat. In response, in May 2014, the US Congress passed a bill which banned the US military from considering the security implications of climate change.

As that US example shows, where the real statistical threats to public life are concerned, we might judge the inaction of our politicians to be a greater ‘threat’ than the risks from terrorism.

In my view our politicians concentrate on terrorism because it’s the perfect ‘paper tiger’. It’s scary, and unpredictable, but by its very nature the success or failure of their policies are not subject to external assessment. The secretive nature of the agencies involved allow politicians to say what wish, and justify their actions to some abstract threat, without any great risk of being proven wrong.

In contrast, if the Government started to address some of those really serious, ecologically-based issues, then that would require fighting some very difficult political battles – abandoning historic commitments to certain economic and ideological principles to achieve those ecological goals.

Tackling the ecological roots of the world’s conflicts

Terrorism, globally, is a serious issue – one which we should all be concerned about. What we’re talking about here is the relative weight of that issue compared to other issues which the UK Government, arguably, has a far greater power to address.

When it comes to the problems of the Middle East, the historic issue of the control of oil supplies is a key factor in the West’s foreign policy strategy. Arguably Britain and France created these problems when they enforced the Sykes-Picot Agreement on the region in 1916 – creating the boundaries within the region we see today.

However, adapting to ecological limits requires that the world wean itself off oil-burning within a decade or two at most. That would allow us to try and find a new, less exploitative way to co-operatively engage with the peoples of that region.

The UN’s decade-old study of “future threats and challenges” highlighted the range of problems which will confront in years to come. And, despite David Cameron’s desire to “get rid of the green crap”, most of these serious, long-term issues are driven by a common ecological root.

Instead of the current Western policy of control and exploitation, we need a new strategy. As outlined in that report, we

“face threats that no nation can hope to master by acting alone – and opportunities that can be much more hopefully exploited if all nations work together. The purpose of this report is to suggest how nations can work together to meet this formidable challenge.”

What has come from the mouths of politicians and pundits over the last few weeks does nothing to address the root of the greater human ecological crisis – manifesting itself in the many regional problems we see in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

Until we have that discussion about global equity and justice, and we end the ‘exceptionalism’ in Western foreign policy, the issue of terrorism will not go away.

Instead, as we escalate measures to control dissent at home and abroad, knee-jerk security and surveillance measures will arguably degrade the democratic principles which our government’s claim to protect.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer. He runs the Free Range Activism website.

 






Farm pests’ global advance threatens food security

Leave a reply




Coming soon to a farm near you: just about every possible type of pest that could take advantage of the ripening harvest in the nearby fields.

By 2050, according to new research in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, those opportunistic viruses, bacteria, fungi, blights, mildews, rusts, beetles, nematodes, flies, mites, spiders and caterpillars that farmers call pests will have saturated the world.

Wherever they can make a living, they will. None of this bodes well for food security in a world of nine billion people and increasingly rapid climate change.

Dan Bebber of the University of Exeter, UK, and colleagues decided to look at the state of pest populations worldwide.

They combed the literature to check the present status of 1,901 pests and pathogens and examined historical records of another 424 species. This research included the records made since 1822 by the agricultural development organization CABI.

Crop pests often emerge in one location, evolve and spread. That notorious potato pest the Colorado beetle, for instance, was first identified in the Rocky Mountains of the US in 1824.

On current trends, all pests will be everywhere by 2050

The scientists reasoned that climate change and international traffic made transmission of pests across oceans and other natural barriers increasingly probable, and tried to arrive at a rate of spread.

They found that more than one in 10 of all pest types can already be found in half of the countries that grow the host plants on which these pests depend. Most countries reported around one fifth of the pests that could theoretically make their home there.

Australia, China, France, India, Italy, the UK and the USA already had more than half of all the pests that could flourish in those countries. The pests that attack those tropical staples yams and cassava can be found in one third of the countries that grow those crops.

This trend towards saturation has increased steadily since the 1950s. So if the trend continues at the rate it has done during the late 20th century, then by 2050 farmers in western Europe and the US, and Japan, India and China will face saturation point.

They will be confronted with potential attack from just about all the pests that, depending on the local climate and conditions, their maize, rice, bananas, potatoes, soybeans and other crops could support.

If the world acts, it may not happen

“If crop pests continue to spread at current rates, many of the world’s biggest crop-producing nations will be inundated by the middle of the century, posing a grave threat to global food security”, Dr Bebber said.

Three kinds of tropical root knot nematode produce larvae that infect the roots of thousands of different plant species.

For example, the fungus Blumeria graminis causes powdery mildew on wheat and other grains; and a virus called Citrus tristeza, first identified by growers in Spain and Portugal in the 1930s, had by 2000 reached 105 out of the 145 countries that grow oranges, lemons, limes and grapefruit.

Predictions such as these are intended to be self-defeating: they present a warning of what might happen if no steps are taken.

“By unlocking the potential to understand the distribution of crop pests and diseases, we’re moving one step closer to protecting our ability to feed a growing global population”, said Timothy Holmes, of CABI’s Plantwise knowledge bank, one of the authors. “The hope is to turn data into positive action.”

 

 

Tim Radford writes for Climate News Network, where this article originates.

 

 






Denmark’s support of the Faroese whale slaughter – the EU must act

Leave a reply




Following the massacre of 33 pilot whales last Saturday, Sea Shepherd volunteers woke up to a bag of dead birds tossed on their doorstep – and it is now quite clear that the Danish government has thrown their cards on the table in support of cruelty and slaughter.

During the last 85 days, the Sea Shepherd look-outs on land and the Sea Shepherd boats on the water were able to divert back to sea, three large pods of pilot whales, and for 85 days not a single whale or dolphin was slain in a drive slaughter. 

However we all knew that eventually the logistics and the geography would allow for a breach for the whalers to seize their opportunity.

Last Saturday the six-person team on Sandoy Island at Sandur spotted six boats leaving the harbor. They immediately informed the closest Sea Shepherd boat crew, the nearest being Bastien Boudoire from France and his crew on the Mike Galesi.

A small pod of 33 pilot whales had been spotted by residents of the small island of Skuvoy, not far from the island of Sandoy. The whales unfortunately had passed very close and there was little time to divert them.

A proud moment in Danish naval history?

As the Mike Galesi raced to the scene, the Loki and the B.S. Sheen were called in from their patrols off the island of Suduroy. The Brigitte Bardot was 52 kilometers to the North and hours away.

The Sandoy team made it to the beach before the whalers arrived. Meanwhile the police at Torshaven scrambled to board Royal Danish Navy helicopters to rush to Sandoy.

The Danish Navy dispatched high-speed ridged hulled inflatables to Sandoy in what must have been one of the proudest moments in Danish Naval history. I mean what was the battle of Copenhagen where they lost to Nelson, compared to this valiant and strategically important race to support the whale killers of Sandoy?

As men, women and children flocked to the beach, laughing and cheering as if they were at a birthday party, eager to see and smell the spurting blood, as the whales were driven to within 200 metres off the beach.

The unequal battle commences

When the Mike Galesi arrived, the Danish Navy ordered the crew to back off. The same order was given to the arriving Loki and B.S. Sheen. Australian Krystal Keynes in command of the B.S. Sheen did not hear the warning and moved in close to film what was happening with the land crew.

From the time the whales were spotted to the time the whales were driven onto the beach was 25 minutes.

As the land volunteers waded into the water to defend the whales they were tackled and arrested by the police. The boat-crews were chased down by the “brave and illustrious” Danish Navy.

In all, fourteen Sea Shepherd volunteers were arrested and transported by Royal Danish Naval helicopters to Torshaven and detained. No report on charges have been released. All Sea Shepherd cameras have been seized.

There is no disgrace in a group of unarmed compassionate conservationists being overtaken and captured by a member nation of NATO. They have the guns, the machines, the money and the men to do it of course. It is in fact an act of profound courage that they waded into the fray in the face of such a frenzy of anger and such a force of arms.

The image taken by Sea Shepherd photographer Nils Greskewitz of three Sea Shepherd volunteers forced to their knees before a Danish Military helicopter will be iconic. Sea Shepherd is proud of each and every volunteer on the Faroe Islands.

The whalers – making up their own laws as they go along

According to the new rules no unauthorized people may approach the killing area. Section 11, Paragraph 1:

“that an area also on land may be considered as grind herding area. The magistrate has resolved, that no unauthorized people may come closer than 1 mile from the grind. From land is grind-area where unauthorized persons must stay away. On shore, the police will cordon off the grind area with strips, so that only people, who participate in the catch, may enter. Catching men has to be able to work undisturbed by unauthorized persons.”

On the killing beach were numerous children. When Sea Shepherd land crew leader Rosie Kunneke inquired as to why they were there and asked if the Grind Master has authorized that children be allowed on the beach, the police said that the only unauthorized people are Sea Shepherd crew. All others are authorized. The police appeared to not have cordoned off the grind area prior to the arrests.

Apparently in the Faroe Islands, the whalers get to dictate the laws that the police are obliged to enforce.

Faroe Islands – exempt from EU law, but guzzling EU subsidies

The Land and boat crew heard the whales screaming in agony which certainly contradicts the Faroese claim that the slaughter is painless despite even the stress of the drive.

An entire family group of pilot whales was massacred on that beach at Sandur and Denmark has exposed the fact that the Danish government is collaborating with the whalers. Denmark is prohibited by European Union regulations from supporting whaling.

This incident gives Sea Shepherd plenty of evidence to push for action from the European Parliament. The Faroes receive massive EU subsidies through Denmark, the only place in Europe subsided by the European Union that does not have to abide by European law because although Denmark is part of the EU, the Faroes claim to be independent of Denmark and thus not part of the EU.

According to the European postal services, the Faroes are indeed a part of Denmark because they will not allow letters addressed to the Faroes unless the country name of Denmark is written on the envelope.

The Faroes are to Denmark what bogus scientific research is to Japan, simply a loophole to get around conservation law.

Many Danes continue to argue that Denmark is not a whaling nation. It appears that the actions of the Danish Navy and the Danish police demonstrate that Denmark is very much a whaling nation.

Denmark is supporting a culture of nature-hate

A few nights ago a bag of dead birds was thrown at the door of one of the houses rented by Sea Shepherd in the Faroe Islands.

The disrespect that this island of dolphin, whale, puffin, and fulmar killers has for marine wildlife is horrendous. When they say that this is all part of their “culture” we should stop and think for a moment just where this word ‘culture’ comes from.

A culture is an environment from which things grow and like cultures of bacteria it is not always a good thing.  In fact what is occurring in the Faroese can be viewed as a cult of killing and cruelty.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dedicated to eradicating such despicable and obscene cults. Unfortunately in today’s world, opposition to cruelty and slaughter is considered criminal in cultures that condone such evils like bull-fighting, dog-fighting, seal-clubbing, dolphin killing and this particular bizarre and odious Faroese activity that they call the Grindadrap which literally translates as whale murder.

The Sea Shepherd volunteers on the Faroes are dedicated and compassionate people who have traveled to these remote islands at the own expense to oppose an evil that should no longer exist on this planet.

One other such cruel and perverse culture – Taiji, Japan

Now more volunteers are travelling to the only other place on the planet where such a horrendous slaughter takes place – Taiji, Japan – as the six-month killing season gets underway there.

These are the two most savage places in the world for dolphins and whales – and of seven billion people in the world, there are less than 60,000 living in these two places where such agonizing cruelty is inflicted against species that the rest of the world loves and cares for.

The cult of pain and death that is the foundation of these two perverse cultures is an aberration and a disgrace to the human race.

Sea Shepherd is well aware of the fact there are Faroese people who oppose the heinous grind. Now is the time for them to stand up and let their voices be heard to once and for all bury this tradition of bloodlust that stains their nation.

 

 

Captain Paul Watson is the founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

This article was originally published by Sea Shepherd.

Volunteers needed: Sea Shepherd is seeking additional volunteers to join the team in the Faroe Islands for the last month of campaign. Volunteers please complete and submit the application at Grindstop 2014 On-Shore Crew Application by 10th September at 5pm EST.

Roll of honour

The confirmed 14 people (8 men and 6 women) arrested are of six Nationalities: 8 French, 2 South Africans, 1 Spanish, 1 Italian, 1 Australian and 1 Mexican.

Sea Shepherd Boat Crew

1. Bastien Boudoire (French)(Offshore Leader)

2. Jérôme Veegaert (French)

3. Guido Capezzoli (French)

4. Tiphaine Blot (French)

5. Baptiste Brebel (French)

6. Antoine Le Dref (French)

7. Céline Le Dourion (French)

8. Krystal Keynes (Australian)

Sea Shepherd Land Crew

9. Maggie Gschnitzer (Italy)(Sandoy Island Leader)

10. Rorigio Gilkuri (Mexico)

11. Nikki Botha (South Africa)

12. Monnique Rossouw (South Africa)

13. Sergio Toribio (Spain)

14. Alexandra Sellet (France)

 






‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 






Britain’s real ‘terror threat’: eco-sceptic politicians

Leave a reply




Over the last few weeks, as the situation in Syria and Iraq has deteriorated, we’ve seen politicians in the West become more bellicose about the “threat” of terrorism to our way of life.

What few in this debate seem to address is whether there is any objective data, compared to other non-terrorist ‘threats’, to support that assertion.

Rather like the ‘reds under the bed’ scares of the Cold War, the threat of ‘Islamism’ is held up as an existential threat to the British public innocently going about their daily lives. However, if we look at the statistics we can’t demonstrate that claim.

How many people in Britain get killed by terrorism in Britain in an average year? Given recent media coverage, how many do you think?

Bees and hornets pose the same risk as ‘terrorism’

Until the murder of Private Lee Rigby in May 2013, no members of the public had been killed by terrorist acts in Britain since 2005. Even with Britain’s history of terrorism, due to the conflict in Ireland, in global terms the risk from terrorism here is low.

The relative scale of the public’s risk of fatality from terrorism was outlined in the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s report published in 2012:

“During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom. The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees.”

That said, must we declare bees and hornets to be as dangerous as al-Qaida? Perhaps that’s why the Government doesn’t want to ban neonicotinoid pesticides in Britain.

Is the loss of civil liberties proportionate to the threat?

The Government, incited by sections of the media, has made a great play of their tough stance on counter-terrorism – and the powers which we grant our security services. Again, are these proportionate to the objective threat?

In July, Britain’s oldest ethical Internet service provider, GreenNet, sued the Government and GCHQ for their arguably unlawful breach of British citizens right to privacy as part of their mass collection of on-line data.

The response of the Government was to regularise that breach of privacy laws by rushing through emergency legislation. David Cameron’s justification for this was that

“Sometimes in the dangerous world in which we live we need our security services to listen to someone’s phone or read their emails to identify and disrupt a terrorist plot.”

Is the threat to our civil rights and privacy really worth that intrusion? And, compared to the threat to democratic values posed by the Government’s spy systems, does that power significantly reduce the risks to the public from terrorism?

To answer that point let’s put that 5 per year terrorism fatality figure into a wider statistical context:

I think that makes the relative hazard of terrorism to other ‘threats’ quite clear. Is this reflected in the current media debate? Clearly not!

Now this really is scary – ditching the ‘green crap’

As I outlined in a recent article for The Ecologist, last year David Cameron instructed his aides to “get rid of all the green crap” from Government policy.

And yet some of the greatest threats to the public are a result of that so called “green crap”. You don’t have to take my word for that – let’s look at what the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has to say.

The MoD publishes its Global Strategic Trends report for those within the MoD and wider Government who are involved in developing long term planning. They recently published the fifth edition, which identifies long term threats and opportunities to 2045 (it even has a scary cartoon which summarises it).

If you read that report, you could almost think you were reading something penned by WWF or Greenpeace. For example:

“As we increase the stress we place on the natural environment, our need to understand, protect and preserve it will almost certainly grow. Climate change, a rise in sea levels, desertification and reducing biodiversity are all issues that could affect us even more over the next 30 years. They are likely to impact on agricultural production and fishing, and could exacerbate humanitarian crises.”

In stating that, the MoD are not being alarmist. You can find similar reports being produced today by other ‘establishment’ organisations – such as the World Economic Forum.

US military researchers produced a broadly similar document in March 2014, which considered climate change to be a particular threat. In response, in May 2014, the US Congress passed a bill which banned the US military from considering the security implications of climate change.

As that US example shows, where the real statistical threats to public life are concerned, we might judge the inaction of our politicians to be a greater ‘threat’ than the risks from terrorism.

In my view our politicians concentrate on terrorism because it’s the perfect ‘paper tiger’. It’s scary, and unpredictable, but by its very nature the success or failure of their policies are not subject to external assessment. The secretive nature of the agencies involved allow politicians to say what wish, and justify their actions to some abstract threat, without any great risk of being proven wrong.

In contrast, if the Government started to address some of those really serious, ecologically-based issues, then that would require fighting some very difficult political battles – abandoning historic commitments to certain economic and ideological principles to achieve those ecological goals.

Tackling the ecological roots of the world’s conflicts

Terrorism, globally, is a serious issue – one which we should all be concerned about. What we’re talking about here is the relative weight of that issue compared to other issues which the UK Government, arguably, has a far greater power to address.

When it comes to the problems of the Middle East, the historic issue of the control of oil supplies is a key factor in the West’s foreign policy strategy. Arguably Britain and France created these problems when they enforced the Sykes-Picot Agreement on the region in 1916 – creating the boundaries within the region we see today.

However, adapting to ecological limits requires that the world wean itself off oil-burning within a decade or two at most. That would allow us to try and find a new, less exploitative way to co-operatively engage with the peoples of that region.

The UN’s decade-old study of “future threats and challenges” highlighted the range of problems which will confront in years to come. And, despite David Cameron’s desire to “get rid of the green crap”, most of these serious, long-term issues are driven by a common ecological root.

Instead of the current Western policy of control and exploitation, we need a new strategy. As outlined in that report, we

“face threats that no nation can hope to master by acting alone – and opportunities that can be much more hopefully exploited if all nations work together. The purpose of this report is to suggest how nations can work together to meet this formidable challenge.”

What has come from the mouths of politicians and pundits over the last few weeks does nothing to address the root of the greater human ecological crisis – manifesting itself in the many regional problems we see in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

Until we have that discussion about global equity and justice, and we end the ‘exceptionalism’ in Western foreign policy, the issue of terrorism will not go away.

Instead, as we escalate measures to control dissent at home and abroad, knee-jerk security and surveillance measures will arguably degrade the democratic principles which our government’s claim to protect.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer. He runs the Free Range Activism website.

 






Farm pests’ global advance threatens food security

Leave a reply




Coming soon to a farm near you: just about every possible type of pest that could take advantage of the ripening harvest in the nearby fields.

By 2050, according to new research in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, those opportunistic viruses, bacteria, fungi, blights, mildews, rusts, beetles, nematodes, flies, mites, spiders and caterpillars that farmers call pests will have saturated the world.

Wherever they can make a living, they will. None of this bodes well for food security in a world of nine billion people and increasingly rapid climate change.

Dan Bebber of the University of Exeter, UK, and colleagues decided to look at the state of pest populations worldwide.

They combed the literature to check the present status of 1,901 pests and pathogens and examined historical records of another 424 species. This research included the records made since 1822 by the agricultural development organization CABI.

Crop pests often emerge in one location, evolve and spread. That notorious potato pest the Colorado beetle, for instance, was first identified in the Rocky Mountains of the US in 1824.

On current trends, all pests will be everywhere by 2050

The scientists reasoned that climate change and international traffic made transmission of pests across oceans and other natural barriers increasingly probable, and tried to arrive at a rate of spread.

They found that more than one in 10 of all pest types can already be found in half of the countries that grow the host plants on which these pests depend. Most countries reported around one fifth of the pests that could theoretically make their home there.

Australia, China, France, India, Italy, the UK and the USA already had more than half of all the pests that could flourish in those countries. The pests that attack those tropical staples yams and cassava can be found in one third of the countries that grow those crops.

This trend towards saturation has increased steadily since the 1950s. So if the trend continues at the rate it has done during the late 20th century, then by 2050 farmers in western Europe and the US, and Japan, India and China will face saturation point.

They will be confronted with potential attack from just about all the pests that, depending on the local climate and conditions, their maize, rice, bananas, potatoes, soybeans and other crops could support.

If the world acts, it may not happen

“If crop pests continue to spread at current rates, many of the world’s biggest crop-producing nations will be inundated by the middle of the century, posing a grave threat to global food security”, Dr Bebber said.

Three kinds of tropical root knot nematode produce larvae that infect the roots of thousands of different plant species.

For example, the fungus Blumeria graminis causes powdery mildew on wheat and other grains; and a virus called Citrus tristeza, first identified by growers in Spain and Portugal in the 1930s, had by 2000 reached 105 out of the 145 countries that grow oranges, lemons, limes and grapefruit.

Predictions such as these are intended to be self-defeating: they present a warning of what might happen if no steps are taken.

“By unlocking the potential to understand the distribution of crop pests and diseases, we’re moving one step closer to protecting our ability to feed a growing global population”, said Timothy Holmes, of CABI’s Plantwise knowledge bank, one of the authors. “The hope is to turn data into positive action.”

 

 

Tim Radford writes for Climate News Network, where this article originates.

 

 






Denmark’s support of the Faroese whale slaughter – the EU must act

Leave a reply




Following the massacre of 33 pilot whales last Saturday, Sea Shepherd volunteers woke up to a bag of dead birds tossed on their doorstep – and it is now quite clear that the Danish government has thrown their cards on the table in support of cruelty and slaughter.

During the last 85 days, the Sea Shepherd look-outs on land and the Sea Shepherd boats on the water were able to divert back to sea, three large pods of pilot whales, and for 85 days not a single whale or dolphin was slain in a drive slaughter. 

However we all knew that eventually the logistics and the geography would allow for a breach for the whalers to seize their opportunity.

Last Saturday the six-person team on Sandoy Island at Sandur spotted six boats leaving the harbor. They immediately informed the closest Sea Shepherd boat crew, the nearest being Bastien Boudoire from France and his crew on the Mike Galesi.

A small pod of 33 pilot whales had been spotted by residents of the small island of Skuvoy, not far from the island of Sandoy. The whales unfortunately had passed very close and there was little time to divert them.

A proud moment in Danish naval history?

As the Mike Galesi raced to the scene, the Loki and the B.S. Sheen were called in from their patrols off the island of Suduroy. The Brigitte Bardot was 52 kilometers to the North and hours away.

The Sandoy team made it to the beach before the whalers arrived. Meanwhile the police at Torshaven scrambled to board Royal Danish Navy helicopters to rush to Sandoy.

The Danish Navy dispatched high-speed ridged hulled inflatables to Sandoy in what must have been one of the proudest moments in Danish Naval history. I mean what was the battle of Copenhagen where they lost to Nelson, compared to this valiant and strategically important race to support the whale killers of Sandoy?

As men, women and children flocked to the beach, laughing and cheering as if they were at a birthday party, eager to see and smell the spurting blood, as the whales were driven to within 200 metres off the beach.

The unequal battle commences

When the Mike Galesi arrived, the Danish Navy ordered the crew to back off. The same order was given to the arriving Loki and B.S. Sheen. Australian Krystal Keynes in command of the B.S. Sheen did not hear the warning and moved in close to film what was happening with the land crew.

From the time the whales were spotted to the time the whales were driven onto the beach was 25 minutes.

As the land volunteers waded into the water to defend the whales they were tackled and arrested by the police. The boat-crews were chased down by the “brave and illustrious” Danish Navy.

In all, fourteen Sea Shepherd volunteers were arrested and transported by Royal Danish Naval helicopters to Torshaven and detained. No report on charges have been released. All Sea Shepherd cameras have been seized.

There is no disgrace in a group of unarmed compassionate conservationists being overtaken and captured by a member nation of NATO. They have the guns, the machines, the money and the men to do it of course. It is in fact an act of profound courage that they waded into the fray in the face of such a frenzy of anger and such a force of arms.

The image taken by Sea Shepherd photographer Nils Greskewitz of three Sea Shepherd volunteers forced to their knees before a Danish Military helicopter will be iconic. Sea Shepherd is proud of each and every volunteer on the Faroe Islands.

The whalers – making up their own laws as they go along

According to the new rules no unauthorized people may approach the killing area. Section 11, Paragraph 1:

“that an area also on land may be considered as grind herding area. The magistrate has resolved, that no unauthorized people may come closer than 1 mile from the grind. From land is grind-area where unauthorized persons must stay away. On shore, the police will cordon off the grind area with strips, so that only people, who participate in the catch, may enter. Catching men has to be able to work undisturbed by unauthorized persons.”

On the killing beach were numerous children. When Sea Shepherd land crew leader Rosie Kunneke inquired as to why they were there and asked if the Grind Master has authorized that children be allowed on the beach, the police said that the only unauthorized people are Sea Shepherd crew. All others are authorized. The police appeared to not have cordoned off the grind area prior to the arrests.

Apparently in the Faroe Islands, the whalers get to dictate the laws that the police are obliged to enforce.

Faroe Islands – exempt from EU law, but guzzling EU subsidies

The Land and boat crew heard the whales screaming in agony which certainly contradicts the Faroese claim that the slaughter is painless despite even the stress of the drive.

An entire family group of pilot whales was massacred on that beach at Sandur and Denmark has exposed the fact that the Danish government is collaborating with the whalers. Denmark is prohibited by European Union regulations from supporting whaling.

This incident gives Sea Shepherd plenty of evidence to push for action from the European Parliament. The Faroes receive massive EU subsidies through Denmark, the only place in Europe subsided by the European Union that does not have to abide by European law because although Denmark is part of the EU, the Faroes claim to be independent of Denmark and thus not part of the EU.

According to the European postal services, the Faroes are indeed a part of Denmark because they will not allow letters addressed to the Faroes unless the country name of Denmark is written on the envelope.

The Faroes are to Denmark what bogus scientific research is to Japan, simply a loophole to get around conservation law.

Many Danes continue to argue that Denmark is not a whaling nation. It appears that the actions of the Danish Navy and the Danish police demonstrate that Denmark is very much a whaling nation.

Denmark is supporting a culture of nature-hate

A few nights ago a bag of dead birds was thrown at the door of one of the houses rented by Sea Shepherd in the Faroe Islands.

The disrespect that this island of dolphin, whale, puffin, and fulmar killers has for marine wildlife is horrendous. When they say that this is all part of their “culture” we should stop and think for a moment just where this word ‘culture’ comes from.

A culture is an environment from which things grow and like cultures of bacteria it is not always a good thing.  In fact what is occurring in the Faroese can be viewed as a cult of killing and cruelty.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dedicated to eradicating such despicable and obscene cults. Unfortunately in today’s world, opposition to cruelty and slaughter is considered criminal in cultures that condone such evils like bull-fighting, dog-fighting, seal-clubbing, dolphin killing and this particular bizarre and odious Faroese activity that they call the Grindadrap which literally translates as whale murder.

The Sea Shepherd volunteers on the Faroes are dedicated and compassionate people who have traveled to these remote islands at the own expense to oppose an evil that should no longer exist on this planet.

One other such cruel and perverse culture – Taiji, Japan

Now more volunteers are travelling to the only other place on the planet where such a horrendous slaughter takes place – Taiji, Japan – as the six-month killing season gets underway there.

These are the two most savage places in the world for dolphins and whales – and of seven billion people in the world, there are less than 60,000 living in these two places where such agonizing cruelty is inflicted against species that the rest of the world loves and cares for.

The cult of pain and death that is the foundation of these two perverse cultures is an aberration and a disgrace to the human race.

Sea Shepherd is well aware of the fact there are Faroese people who oppose the heinous grind. Now is the time for them to stand up and let their voices be heard to once and for all bury this tradition of bloodlust that stains their nation.

 

 

Captain Paul Watson is the founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.

This article was originally published by Sea Shepherd.

Volunteers needed: Sea Shepherd is seeking additional volunteers to join the team in the Faroe Islands for the last month of campaign. Volunteers please complete and submit the application at Grindstop 2014 On-Shore Crew Application by 10th September at 5pm EST.

Roll of honour

The confirmed 14 people (8 men and 6 women) arrested are of six Nationalities: 8 French, 2 South Africans, 1 Spanish, 1 Italian, 1 Australian and 1 Mexican.

Sea Shepherd Boat Crew

1. Bastien Boudoire (French)(Offshore Leader)

2. Jérôme Veegaert (French)

3. Guido Capezzoli (French)

4. Tiphaine Blot (French)

5. Baptiste Brebel (French)

6. Antoine Le Dref (French)

7. Céline Le Dourion (French)

8. Krystal Keynes (Australian)

Sea Shepherd Land Crew

9. Maggie Gschnitzer (Italy)(Sandoy Island Leader)

10. Rorigio Gilkuri (Mexico)

11. Nikki Botha (South Africa)

12. Monnique Rossouw (South Africa)

13. Sergio Toribio (Spain)

14. Alexandra Sellet (France)

 






‘Misleading’ fracking ad ‘must not appear again’

Leave a reply




A reader of the Daily Telegraph saw red on reading an ad by Breitling Energy Corporation – one the the US’s biggest frackers – making big promises about the benefits of fracking in the UK.

Now their complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been upheld on all six counts, as the ad is ruled to be making claims that are at the same time misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated.

“Dear Citizens of the United Kingdom”, the ad began. “Do you know that your country is blessed with an incredible gift? It’s shale gas – natural gas trapped in layers of shale rock deep below the surface of the earth …

“The British Geological Survey has recently released new shale gas estimates considerably higher than former estimates. This is fantastic news for the UK – especially in the wake of a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter …

“This means: Decades worth of natural gas … Millions of pounds in tax revenues to support social and other government programs … Freedom from interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply … Lowering energy prices for millions … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy … “

But not a single claim held water!

But now its claims have been ruled out of order. The complainant set out the following issues, all of which were upheld following the ASA’s painstaking research:

Claim 1: “a near-catastrophic gas shortage last winter” – false because it exaggerated the severity of the shortage.

ASA: “We considered that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the UK had been in real danger of running out of gas, and therefore that the reference to a ‘near-catastrophic’ shortage was misleading.”

Claim 2: “This means … decades worth of natural gas” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “Because the report related to shale gas resources only and not reserves, and because we understood that informed opinion was at best divided as to the likely recovery factor of those resources, we concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 3: “This means … Millions of pounds in tax revenues” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known.

ASA: “We considered that it was not possible definitively to calculate the likely tax revenues resulting from the resources identified by the BGS report … We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.”

Claim 4: “interruptions and stoppages as a result of Russia’s political games with your gas supply”, because Russia did not supply gas to the UK and had never interrupted the UK’s gas supply.

ASA: “the claim … exaggerated the outcome of the 2009 Russia-Ukraine dispute for the UK and misled as to both the direct intent of Russia’s actions and the probability of future similar events causing interruptions or shortages in the UK.”

Claim 5: “This means … Lowering energy prices for millions” – false because the amount of natural gas in the UK, and the economic viability of extracting it, was not yet known, and that in any case domestic extraction would have minimal impact on energy prices because the UK was part of an integrated European gas market.

ASA: “Whilst we acknowledged the view expressed by David Cameron that fracking in the UK had ‘real potential’ to drive down energy bills, we noted that that view was contingent upon a number of assumptions as to the size of UK shale gas reserves and the scale upon which extraction would be adopted, and were concerned in any case that the press article did not constitute robust documentary evidence in support of the claim.”

Claim 6: “This means … Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by replacing coal with natural gas for energy” – false because there were no reliable estimates for the carbon footprint of shale gas extraction, that extraction carried the risk of methane emissions, which if unburnt was more harmful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and that there was no certainty that gas would be used instead of, rather than in addition to, coal.

ASA: “it was not certain that the development of UK shale gas resources would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions where that happened alongside a concurrent reduction in the use of coal for energy. We also considered that the wording ‘by replacing coal with natural gas for energy’ implied that shale gas would be used instead of coal, when that was only one of several scenarios including an additional energy source to meet increased future demand.”

A final telling off

In conclusion, the ASA admonished the Dallas, Texas based Breitling, “The claims must not appear again in their current form.

“We told Breitling Energy Corporation to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence in support of claims likely to be regarded as objective and that were capable of objective substantiation, that matters of opinion were not presented as objective claims, and that their future ads did not suggest that their claims were universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion existed.”

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Tony Bosworth commented: “Supporters of fracking claim that their opponents peddle myth and misinformation, but this verdict and a previous ASA decision against Cuadrilla for their ‘misleading advertising’, is a damning indictment of fracking industry spin.”

But most remarkable is that Breitling’s claims coincide precisely with those made by David Cameron, the UK’s pro-fracking Prime minister, his equally pro-fracking Chancellor, David Osborne, and other Cabinet members.

Now that the claims they make at every opportunity have been subject to exhaustive scrutiny and found to be simultaneously misleading, unsubstantiated and exaggerated, will they change their tune?

 

 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

Read: ASA Adjudication on Breitling Energy Corporation.

 

 






Britain’s real ‘terror threat’: eco-sceptic politicians

Leave a reply




Over the last few weeks, as the situation in Syria and Iraq has deteriorated, we’ve seen politicians in the West become more bellicose about the “threat” of terrorism to our way of life.

What few in this debate seem to address is whether there is any objective data, compared to other non-terrorist ‘threats’, to support that assertion.

Rather like the ‘reds under the bed’ scares of the Cold War, the threat of ‘Islamism’ is held up as an existential threat to the British public innocently going about their daily lives. However, if we look at the statistics we can’t demonstrate that claim.

How many people in Britain get killed by terrorism in Britain in an average year? Given recent media coverage, how many do you think?

Bees and hornets pose the same risk as ‘terrorism’

Until the murder of Private Lee Rigby in May 2013, no members of the public had been killed by terrorist acts in Britain since 2005. Even with Britain’s history of terrorism, due to the conflict in Ireland, in global terms the risk from terrorism here is low.

The relative scale of the public’s risk of fatality from terrorism was outlined in the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s report published in 2012:

“During the 21st century, terrorism has been an insignificant cause of mortality in the United Kingdom. The annualised average of five deaths caused by terrorism in England and Wales over this period compares with total accidental deaths in 2010 of 17,201, including 123 cyclists killed in traffic accidents, 102 personnel killed in Afghanistan, 29 people drowned in the bathtub and five killed by stings from hornets, wasps and bees.”

That said, must we declare bees and hornets to be as dangerous as al-Qaida? Perhaps that’s why the Government doesn’t want to ban neonicotinoid pesticides in Britain.

Is the loss of civil liberties proportionate to the threat?

The Government, incited by sections of the media, has made a great play of their tough stance on counter-terrorism – and the powers which we grant our security services. Again, are these proportionate to the objective threat?

In July, Britain’s oldest ethical Internet service provider, GreenNet, sued the Government and GCHQ for their arguably unlawful breach of British citizens right to privacy as part of their mass collection of on-line data.

The response of the Government was to regularise that breach of privacy laws by rushing through emergency legislation. David Cameron’s justification for this was that

“Sometimes in the dangerous world in which we live we need our security services to listen to someone’s phone or read their emails to identify and disrupt a terrorist plot.”

Is the threat to our civil rights and privacy really worth that intrusion? And, compared to the threat to democratic values posed by the Government’s spy systems, does that power significantly reduce the risks to the public from terrorism?

To answer that point let’s put that 5 per year terrorism fatality figure into a wider statistical context:

I think that makes the relative hazard of terrorism to other ‘threats’ quite clear. Is this reflected in the current media debate? Clearly not!

Now this really is scary – ditching the ‘green crap’

As I outlined in a recent article for The Ecologist, last year David Cameron instructed his aides to “get rid of all the green crap” from Government policy.

And yet some of the greatest threats to the public are a result of that so called “green crap”. You don’t have to take my word for that – let’s look at what the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has to say.

The MoD publishes its Global Strategic Trends report for those within the MoD and wider Government who are involved in developing long term planning. They recently published the fifth edition, which identifies long term threats and opportunities to 2045 (it even has a scary cartoon which summarises it).

If you read that report, you could almost think you were reading something penned by WWF or Greenpeace. For example:

“As we increase the stress we place on the natural environment, our need to understand, protect and preserve it will almost certainly grow. Climate change, a rise in sea levels, desertification and reducing biodiversity are all issues that could affect us even more over the next 30 years. They are likely to impact on agricultural production and fishing, and could exacerbate humanitarian crises.”

In stating that, the MoD are not being alarmist. You can find similar reports being produced today by other ‘establishment’ organisations – such as the World Economic Forum.

US military researchers produced a broadly similar document in March 2014, which considered climate change to be a particular threat. In response, in May 2014, the US Congress passed a bill which banned the US military from considering the security implications of climate change.

As that US example shows, where the real statistical threats to public life are concerned, we might judge the inaction of our politicians to be a greater ‘threat’ than the risks from terrorism.

In my view our politicians concentrate on terrorism because it’s the perfect ‘paper tiger’. It’s scary, and unpredictable, but by its very nature the success or failure of their policies are not subject to external assessment. The secretive nature of the agencies involved allow politicians to say what wish, and justify their actions to some abstract threat, without any great risk of being proven wrong.

In contrast, if the Government started to address some of those really serious, ecologically-based issues, then that would require fighting some very difficult political battles – abandoning historic commitments to certain economic and ideological principles to achieve those ecological goals.

Tackling the ecological roots of the world’s conflicts

Terrorism, globally, is a serious issue – one which we should all be concerned about. What we’re talking about here is the relative weight of that issue compared to other issues which the UK Government, arguably, has a far greater power to address.

When it comes to the problems of the Middle East, the historic issue of the control of oil supplies is a key factor in the West’s foreign policy strategy. Arguably Britain and France created these problems when they enforced the Sykes-Picot Agreement on the region in 1916 – creating the boundaries within the region we see today.

However, adapting to ecological limits requires that the world wean itself off oil-burning within a decade or two at most. That would allow us to try and find a new, less exploitative way to co-operatively engage with the peoples of that region.

The UN’s decade-old study of “future threats and challenges” highlighted the range of problems which will confront in years to come. And, despite David Cameron’s desire to “get rid of the green crap”, most of these serious, long-term issues are driven by a common ecological root.

Instead of the current Western policy of control and exploitation, we need a new strategy. As outlined in that report, we

“face threats that no nation can hope to master by acting alone – and opportunities that can be much more hopefully exploited if all nations work together. The purpose of this report is to suggest how nations can work together to meet this formidable challenge.”

What has come from the mouths of politicians and pundits over the last few weeks does nothing to address the root of the greater human ecological crisis – manifesting itself in the many regional problems we see in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere.

Until we have that discussion about global equity and justice, and we end the ‘exceptionalism’ in Western foreign policy, the issue of terrorism will not go away.

Instead, as we escalate measures to control dissent at home and abroad, knee-jerk security and surveillance measures will arguably degrade the democratic principles which our government’s claim to protect.

 

 

Paul Mobbs is an independent environmental consultant, investigator, author and lecturer. He runs the Free Range Activism website.